ncloud_sens_delete_sms_unsubscribes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already set destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description emphasizes 'Destructive' and requires a confirm flag, which adds critical safety context for destructive operations. However, it does not mention what happens to the existing unsubscribe list or whether other settings are affected, but the annotations cover the destruction risk. The idempotentHint is not contradicted since removing numbers is idempotent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the destructive warning and the core effect. Every element (endpoint, confirm requirement) earns its place. It is concise yet information-rich.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive operation with a confirm flag, the description is complete: it explains the endpoint, the required confirm, and the param details. There is no output schema, but the 204 status is mentioned. The only minor gap is that it doesn't state that the operation is irreversible, but the 'Destructive' warning and confirm requirement imply this.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value for the confirm parameter (explicitly noting it must be true to execute) and for serviceId (provides fallback env var names and how to find it). This exceeds the baseline of 3 set for high coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Remove'), the resource ('numbers from the SMS unsubscribe list'), and the effect ('so they can receive messages again'). It also includes the HTTP method and endpoint, which disambiguates it from related tools like ncloud_sens_register_sms_unsubscribes and ncloud_sens_list_sms_unsubscribes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly begins with 'Destructive:' and instructs to 'Set confirm=true to execute.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool (to remove numbers) and implies it should only be used when the user explicitly wants to send messages to previously unsubscribed numbers. The warning and confirm requirement serve as strong usage guidance, though it does not name alternative tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.